Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

For political gain, no less:

"The Russian intelligence agency behind the 2016 election cyberattacks targeted Sen. Claire McCaskill as she began her 2018 re-election campaign in earnest, a Daily Beast forensic analysis reveals. That makes the Missouri Democrat the first identified target of the Kremlin’s 2018 election interference.

In August 2017, around the time of the hack attempt, Trump traveled to Missouri and chided McCaskill, telling the crowd to “vote her out of office.” Just this last week, however, Trump said, on Twitter, that he feared Russians would intervene in the 2018 midterm elections on behalf of Democrats."

_____

Earlier this week I was listening to talk radio (right wing dominated talk radio that is) and was surprised to hear that the presenter was glad then Secretary of State Clinton was hacked. He was something of a Libertarian and I wish I had listened long enough to get his name, but I believe I've heard this sentiment before. Never mind there wasn't anything in her emails but don't let the facts get in your way, right?

Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

Originally Posted by CowboyX

For political gain, no less:

"The Russian intelligence agency behind the 2016 election cyberattacks targeted Sen. Claire McCaskill as she began her 2018 re-election campaign in earnest, a Daily Beast forensic analysis reveals. That makes the Missouri Democrat the first identified target of the Kremlin’s 2018 election interference.

In August 2017, around the time of the hack attempt, Trump traveled to Missouri and chided McCaskill, telling the crowd to “vote her out of office.” Just this last week, however, Trump said, on Twitter, that he feared Russians would intervene in the 2018 midterm elections on behalf of Democrats."

_____

Earlier this week I was listening to talk radio (right wing dominated talk radio that is) and was surprised to hear that the presenter was glad then Secretary of State Clinton was hacked. He was something of a Libertarian and I wish I had listened long enough to get his name, but I believe I've heard this sentiment before. Never mind there wasn't anything in her emails but don't let the facts get in your way, right?

While I won't go so far as to advocate hacking politicians as a matter of normal practice, I will say I found it rather amusing some truths were there for the public to see if they so chose. How refreshing for some honesty in politics for a change since I don't think anyone was saying any of it was made up.
So if the Russians were trying to hurt Hillary's candidacy, at least they were doing it with the truth as apposed to making it all up.

And in case you were going to ask, I probably would have found it amusing if it had happened to Trump/other republican candidate as well.

Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

Originally Posted by CowboyX

What truths?

I assume then you have not read any of the emails in question, but no matter. That would change little in your mind anyway.

The fact that Hillary and the Dem party were embarrassed by those emails and implored Rep's to "not use that information, since they could be hacked next and their secrets exposed", pretty clearly shows things were revealed that they wanted kept secret.

We could argue things like "did Bernie even have a chance" or whatever, but the point is, pretty clearly, Hillary did not want those emails public! Since she did not say ANY of it was false/fabricated/made up, obviously what was in those emails was true and she did not want the public to know!
What part of this doesn't make sense???

May I ask, do you think either Bill or Hillary have ever done anything wrong, as in, are they even capable of doing wrong???

Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

Originally Posted by Belthazor

The ones on Hillary's email server that were hacked and became public.

I think you have things a bit confused. Hillary's email server was never hacked (that we know of). The emails you are thinking of were from the DNC (democratic national committee) email servers Those emails show how the party insiders were trying to help Hillary defeate Bernie even though they are supposed to be neutral.

Hillary's emails were made public by the government as part of the FBI investigation into whether she had violated espionage law by not using government email systems when she was Secretary of State. It was not the content of those emails that was a problem so much as where she had been storing them and who she'd sent them to.

I think you have things a bit confused. Hillary's email server was never hacked (that we know of). The emails you are thinking of were from the DNC (democratic national committee) email servers Those emails show how the party insiders were trying to help Hillary defeate Bernie even though they are supposed to be neutral.

Hillary's emails were made public by the government as part of the FBI investigation into whether she had violated espionage law by not using government email systems when she was Secretary of State. It was not the content of those emails that was a problem so much as where she had been storing them and who she'd sent them to.

I admit, I mistakenly was thinking of Podesta's email acc't that was hacked when I posted, though it does seem quite likely Hillary's was hacked as well considering her level of security on her personal server.

Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

Originally Posted by Sigfried

I think you have things a bit confused. Hillary's email server was never hacked (that we know of). The emails you are thinking of were from the DNC (democratic national committee) email servers Those emails show how the party insiders were trying to help Hillary defeate Bernie even though they are supposed to be neutral.

Yeah, I'm not sure I care about that. Was there a law broken? I thought Squatch talked about this once and they violated the party's bylaws or something.

Hillary's emails were made public by the government as part of the FBI investigation into whether she had violated espionage law by not using government email systems when she was Secretary of State. It was not the content of those emails that was a problem so much as where she had been storing them and who she'd sent them to.

Sure, I think I also discussed this with Squatch...stuff was classified and she was reprimanded. She did delete things, right? The 30,000? But they were recovered. There was some disagreement as to what should've been deleted and what saved, right?

Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

Originally Posted by CowboyX

Yeah, I'm not sure I care about that. Was there a law broken? I thought Squatch talked about this once and they violated the party's bylaws or something.

Well, the hacking broke laws, but not the emails. The party maintained they were neutral, but the emails showed that was not true. The real significance of them is they greatly angered some of Sanders supporters and cemented them against Hillary. (Though that is somewhat irrational as Hillary wasn't at all in direct control of what the DNC was doing.) But at any rate, they had an impact and I still see anti-establishment leftists complaining bitterly about it from time to time so it was impactful. Though seriously, who didn't think they were in the bag for Hillary? It's pretty naive.

THough, I would not say that means the primary was "rigged" as some conclude. The DNC was also in the bag for Hillary during Obama's first run. I was at caucuses and the party faithful totally backed her. He just had so many outsider supporters show up the insiders were totally overwhelmed. Bernie just didn't quite generate that level of outsider support such that it could overcome the insider preference.

Sure, I think I also discussed this with Squatch...stuff was classified and she was reprimanded. She did delete things, right? The 30,000? But they were recovered. There was some disagreement as to what should've been deleted and what saved, right?

Well, she didn't delete anything (at least not that anyone can prove or has been admitted). The IT company that administrated her server deleted a buch of archived emails. They say it was an accident. But the timeing, and the fact the Clinton campaign had some calls into them around that time, make many suspicious that it was intentional. They were supposedly personal emails rather than state department emails, but when recovered by the FBI they found quite a few that they deemed to be related to her state department work.

I think we can definately say she acted in a way to protect herelf as much as she could while claiming to be complying with the investigation. Not total stonewalling, but not what we might call full and ready compliance either. Definately walking the tight rope where she looks really bad in public opinion, but it's hard to take her to court over it.

What I don't get is what do people think are in those emails.

Well, they were looking for dirt on Benghazi. But mostly what they found was just her doing her job, but doing it in a way that wasn't very secure or in compliance with the security regulations for the state department. Some call it criminal, others just sloppy. (I tend to feel that whatever the case, it would be very hard to prove criminality in court.)

Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

Originally Posted by CowboyX

Sure, I think I also discussed this with Squatch...stuff was classified and she was reprimanded. She did delete things, right? The 30,000? ut they were recovered. There was some disagreement as to what should've been deleted and what saved, right?

Hmm, something they did wrong that I think they were wrong to do...I really can't think of anything offhand.

Hmmmm, you said:
"Well, I don't know how you would know that."
in post #5.

Since you believe both Clinton's are above the normal human condition, (in that ALL people have actually done wrong, including the Clinton's and every other human that ever lived) that is how I came to that conclusion. Just by your own words.

Why? I live in Massachusetts and voted for Bernie and he lost here. He should have dropped out shortly thereafter.

Had the Dem party allowed a fair and open contest, Bernie might not have lost is kinda the point, and your guy might have one over Trump!!!
I may have voted for him for instance, and a lot of other People that would never vote for Hillary may have as well.

It amazes me this doesn't bother you at all having your choice being trampled by the "more informed leaders" of the Dem party.

This would by one of the reasons "Dem's are more extreme than Rep's" as the other thread would say....

I have not heard a Rep say their candidate could not do/have not done anything wrong.......EVER....
I have heard an endless supply tell me Clintons could/did not do wrong.

Hmmmm, you said:
"Well, I don't know how you would know that."
in post #5.

Since you believe both Clinton's are above the normal human condition, (in that ALL people have actually done wrong, including the Clinton's and every other human that ever lived) that is how I came to that conclusion. Just by your own words.

I imagined we were talking about something serious not rolling through a stop sign.

Had the Dem party allowed a fair and open contest, Bernie might not have lost is kinda the point, and your guy might have one over Trump!!!

Sure, if wishes were fishes. The guy couldn't win Massachusetts of all places where he should've won. He should've gotten on board and taken his high level post in the administration or committee leaderships where he could have done real good...but no.

Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

Originally Posted by CowboyX

Maybe, I thought there was some disagreement about that.[COLOR="Silver"]

Well if one was "reprimanded", I presume it was because they did something wrong, but ya, that was my real point. For a segment of the electorate, Clinton's are incapable of doing wrong so of course there was "disagreement".

Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

Originally Posted by Belthazor

Well if one was "reprimanded", I presume it was because they did something wrong, but ya, that was my real point. For a segment of the electorate, Clinton's are incapable of doing wrong so of course there was "disagreement".

Agreed, though he would still have to basically fallow Hillary's will or be replaced, and no matter what, would be seen as a part of her admin by voters. I think he wanted to separate himself from others coattails and forward what he believes is right.

It's kinda like not compromising your own values just to be part of the admin.

2. Why bother voting in the primary election at all then? We should just let the party higher ups decide for us since they will always "have vastly more information" than the average voter????[COLOR="Silver"]

Agreed, though he would still have to basically fallow Hillary's will or be replaced, and no matter what, would be seen as a part of her admin by voters.

Maybe your side which yearns for a king or emperor. But our government doesn't work like that, nor does it work like a business where you can just fire anyone who doesn't kiss ass. Trump is finding this out.

But our government doesn't work like that, nor does it work like a business where you can just fire anyone who doesn't kiss ass.

Hmmm, let's see how this would work in the real world instead of an idealistic mentality:

The President is in charge of the EPA (or pick whatever Fed Gov't Agency you like if you' rather).
The Pres won his election on a strong, regulated enforcement of existing environmental laws.
He appoints some one to head EPA.
This person slows enforcement actions, loosens regulatory regulations, and sees more exemptions for businesses that have to fallow regulatory guidlines.
No laws were broken and this person may even believe these new policies are in the best interest of the American, but clearly, the wishes of the President are not being carried out.

Well, from your description of a president just replacing the highest ranking senators at will, on a whim, I take it that you're a conservative with a traditionalist bent. You'd therefore be supportive of a single headman in charge, usually the strongest. Probably divinely selected. You'd be a tory and would've supported the king during the revolution.

Hmmm, let's see how this would work in the real world instead of an idealistic mentality:

The President is in charge of the EPA (or pick whatever Fed Gov't Agency you like if you' rather).
The Pres won his election on a strong, regulated enforcement of existing environmental laws.
He appoints some one to head EPA.
This person slows enforcement actions, loosens regulatory regulations, and sees more exemptions for businesses that have to fallow regulatory guidlines.
No laws were broken and this person may even believe these new policies are in the best interest of the American, but clearly, the wishes of the President are not being carried out.

The President should not be able to fire this person why?

They could fire them but there would be repercussions..."didn't you vet the person you nominated? Listen to the nomination hearings?" In business nobody's going to say boo about the secretary you fired who said she could type but couldn't.

That "situation" was voting in the primaries and should the regular democrat voter be upset by party officials try to "fix" the procedures so as to further their choice above a majority vote of all memebers.

How does the timing of the primary affect whether party officials have :... vastly more information than me."?
You are saying would defer to their judgement in Mass if the "timing" had been different???

They could fire them but there would be repercussions..."didn't you vet the person you nominated? Listen to the nomination hearings?" In business nobody's going to say boo about the secretary you fired who said she could type but couldn't.[COLOR="Silver"]

Wow. Having your political opposition say "didn't you vet the person you nominated? Listen to the nomination hearings?" would be a huge price to pay to see your policies are carried out by your staff appointments

Are you saying no other president has removed Agency heads that he appointed?

I take it that you're a conservative with a traditionalist bent. You'd therefore be supportive of a single headman in charge, usually the strongest. Probably divinely selected. You'd be a tory and would've supported the king during the revolution.

I have some conservative leanings depending on subject matter. I have no big issue with "tradition" and I am a realist, I know things will always be changing.

"a single head man in charge"? If you mean a king or President with no Congress nor Supreme Court, that would be a big, big NO'er on that one.
"the strongest" (I assume you mean physically) is NO kind of qualification for leadership

"divinely selected"??? WOW!!! I almost snapped my garter belt on that one Scootter!! If there were a God, I doubt "He" would select the leader of a country (that seems too dumb to even contemplate). However, as my many, many posts on ODN religious Op's will attest to, I am definitely agnostic.

"a Tory"? Highly unlikely. I am not good with wonton authority at all....

"would've supported the king during the revolution." What revolution?? No matter, since I think we (humans) suffer from some of our emotions, one person should never really be in charge.

I believe "absolute power corrupts absolutely" (John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, also known as Lord Acton)
(God is said to have absolute power...hmmmm...)

Re: Republicans Refuse to Defend Us Against Foreign Attacks

Originally Posted by CowboyX

For political gain, no less:

"The Russian intelligence agency behind the 2016 election cyberattacks targeted Sen. Claire McCaskill as she began her 2018 re-election campaign in earnest, a Daily Beast forensic analysis reveals. That makes the Missouri Democrat the first identified target of the Kremlin’s 2018 election interference.

In August 2017, around the time of the hack attempt, Trump traveled to Missouri and chided McCaskill, telling the crowd to “vote her out of office.” Just this last week, however, Trump said, on Twitter, that he feared Russians would intervene in the 2018 midterm elections on behalf of Democrats."

_____

Earlier this week I was listening to talk radio (right wing dominated talk radio that is) and was surprised to hear that the presenter was glad then Secretary of State Clinton was hacked. He was something of a Libertarian and I wish I had listened long enough to get his name, but I believe I've heard this sentiment before. Never mind there wasn't anything in her emails but don't let the facts get in your way, right?

So, according to your link, the Russian Hacking tried to affect the elections by basically releasing actual true confidential emails from the DNC and Hillary to the public? Is this correct?

Also, are you implying the US is not doing similar "hacks" or otherwise trying to influence the elections of other Govt's all over the world?
After all we wire tapped Chancellor Merkel's phone...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b02d5d5ed382bd
"Indeed, meddling in foreign politics is a great American pastime, and one that Clinton has some familiarity with. For more than 100 years, without any significant break, the U.S. has been doing whatever it can to influence the outcome of elections ― up to and including assassinating politicians it has found unfriendly."

P:robably the US would not do that since it is against the law:

https://spectator.org/obamas-meddlin...-six-examples/
"Meddling in other’s elections is a violation of international law. In 1965, the United Nations General Assembly reaffirmed this with a resolution stating: “No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal […] affairs of any other State.” And the International Court of Justice also considers such intervention to be illegal. More importantly, U.S. law prohibits the use of tax dollars to influence foreign elections."

Since it is against international law and US tax dollars can not be used for such a purpose by US law, I am convinced the US would not try to influence another country's elections so we are justified in being outraged that a country would try to influence ours (*by allowing some truths to be known about one party only).